Posts Tagged ‘humanists’

Attributes of Tao: Attributes of Allah: Divinely revealed religions

March 27, 2014

I would like the viewers of Paarsurrey blog to access the following link to know the context of the dialogue and to form their own independent reasonable opinion:

http://thesuperstitiousnakedape.wordpress.com/2014/03/25/a-reason-to-believe/comment-page-1/#comment-13582

PAARSURREY says:
March 27, 2014 at 6:27 pm

@JOHN ZANDE :March 27, 2014 at 11:52 am
“Tell me, Paar, what are “His attributes,” and how do you know?
NOTE: please don’t say the Qu’ran ” Unquote

I don’t know as to why one has an aversion to Quran.

What harm did it to the Atheists/Agnostics/Skeptics/Humanists etc?

Anyway; for the attributes of One-True-God (Allah Tao Yahweh Ahura-Mazda Parmeshawara Eshawara) one may like to read below, no compulsion:

The way of life presented by Lao-tzu (6th century BC), a contemporary of Confucius, is known as Taoism.

In Taoism, eternal truth is embodied in a being known as Tao whose attributes are spiritual and holy rather than material. Tao can be aptly defined as a personification of eternal virtues. They are precisely the same attributes as ascribed to God in Islam and other Divinely revealed religions. Taoism teaches man to completely submit to Truth (Tao), and to strive to modulate Tao. Tao is the model, and Taoism is the way to gain nearness to this model.

The same is the treatment in the Holy Quran regarding the relationship between God and man:

The hues of God! And who is more beautiful in hues than God?—and Him alone do we worship. 2:139
In Islam God is described and introduced through His attributes and the goal set for Muslims is to emulate them to modulate their lives.
The description of Tao, presented by Lao-tzu, is quite similar to the attributes of God mentioned in the Quran. He writes:

‘The great Tao is vast. He is on the left and He is on the right. All creatures depend upon Him, and the care of them tires Him not. He brings creation to completion, without seeking reward. He provides for all His creation, but requires nothing for Himself, so He may be considered small. All creatures turn to Him for their needs, yet He keeps nothing for Himself, thus He may be named ‘the Supreme’. He does not consider Himself great and because of this He is truly Great.’

Again we have another description:

‘Looked for but not visible, such a Being may be colorless. Listened for but not heard, such a Being may be called Silent. Grasped for but not caught, such may be called Concealed. No one can comprehend the ultimate source of these three qualities, but they are found in one Being. Though not luminous yet below Him there is no darkness. Being infinite He cannot be described. All His shapes keep returning to nothingness, thus we can say He is Shapeless; His image is without form. He is beyond comprehension (being the rarest of things). Try to reach His beginning, no beginning can be seen. Seek His end, no end can be perceived. Therefore, follow the ancient ways and improve your present.’
Also, in another verse the description of Tao runs as follows:

‘He is indivisible and His true nature cannot be grasped. All creation originates from Him. He existed before heaven and earth were created. He is One and alone without form or sound. He exists independently without any support. Nothing changes in Him. He is in constant motion, but never tires. He can be called the Begetter of the universe.’

The description of Tao given in the above passages is also found in different verses of the Quran, which when read together, reproduce everything covered by the above quotes. The image of God thus described in the Holy Quran, is summed up by the founder of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, the late Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad(as) of Qadian (India), in the following words:

‘He is near yet far, distant yet close… He is highest of high, yet it cannot be said that there is anyone below Him farther than He. He is in heaven, but it cannot be said that He is not on Earth. He combines in Himself all the most perfect attributes and manifests the virtues which are truly worthy of praise.’

It is pertinent to note that Chinese philosophy had its roots in religion, but with the passage of time its religious origin was obscured. Its followers adhered to the philosophy itself but thought it unnecessary to have any direct link with the source which had nourished it in the past. Consequently, the image of God was gradually impersonalised and the followers of Tao ceased to cultivate a personal relationship with Him as a Supreme Conscious Living Being.

“Revelation, Rationality, Knowledge & Truth” Mirza Tahir Ahmad
https://www.alislam.org/library/books/revelation/part_2_section_4.html

Regards

PAARSURREY says:
March 27, 2014 at 9:44 pm

@JOHN ZANDE : March 27, 2014 at 11:52 am
“We’ve already proven that Mo” Unquote

When and whence and who proved it?

Please

http://thesuperstitiousnakedape.wordpress.com/2014/03/25/a-reason-to-believe/comment-page-1/#comment-13602

PAARSURREY says:
March 27, 2014 at 9:54 pm

@N℮ÜҐ☼N☮☂℮Ṧ : March 27, 2014 at 8:17 pm
Quote
“even in the coldest day, drops of sweat would fall from his forehead”
“at the moment of inspiration, anxiety pressed upon the Prophet, and his countenance was troubled”
“the muscles between his neck and shoulders were trembling”
Mohammed: “The Revelation is always brought to me by an angel — sometimes the angel appears to me in the shape of a human and speaks to me.” Unquote

Please quote from Quran where this is mentioned.

Will you? Please

Advertisements

“Proof” of God or “evidence” of God : Atheists’ rhetoric

March 24, 2014

http://triangulations.wordpress.com/2011/01/01/the-myth-of-definitions/#comment-126902

paarsurrey
03/24/2014 at 10:53 am

@ Sabio Lantz
1. “But words are a human creation, a creation of mind and relationship and thus fuzzy by nature.” Unquote

I don’t agree with you here.

Words are not created by humans; humans don’t create any word with the intentions of creating it. They use the already existing words by giving them a little more meaning sometimes. Like a potter gives a shape to clay but does not create the clay; that may some people say the potter has created it; but not exactly.

It is for this that one will not find words that could be traced having been created by somebody, naming a particular human being who has created the word/s.

2. “We need to realize that words are our servants; we should not be the servants of words.” Unquote

I would rather say that words facilitate our communication with one another; it is a bounty bestowed to humans by God; which would have been otherwise impossible.

It happens so often that Atheists/Agnostics/Skeptics/ “Humanists”/ “Secularists” ask me to give “proof” of God or “evidence” of God.

I know that they are repeating it as rhetoric of the Atheists; not understanding them exactly. Whatever reason or argument we provide them they would just ridicule or deride it saying it is no argument and or no proof or no evidence.
I ask them to define the words “proof and or evidence” in their own words (not quoting from a dictionary) so that I could understand their personal concept of its meaning to come on the same page for a meaningful discussion.

But they don’t provide it.

Regards

There is no slavery in Quran; absolutely none

March 21, 2014

http://thesuperstitiousnakedape.wordpress.com/2014/03/17/hermeneutics-2/comment-page-1/#comment-13359

PAARSURREY says:
March 21, 2014 at 9:59 pm

@JOHN ZANDE says:March 21, 2014 at 8:46 pm

“Clearly there must be some sanction somewhere, else Islam wouldn’t have such a vibrant history of slavery. Christianity, of course, is no better. One’s as archaic as the other.”

It is the rulers that do such things; they do things in the name of religion; and exploit people under cover.

Buddha, Krishna, Zoroaster, Moses, Jesus, Socrates, Muhammad (and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad- the rightful successor of Muhammad in our present era) gave no teachings to make others a slave. There is no such teaching in Quran; I am absolutely certain about it.

Other founders of religions- the Messengers Prophets of the One-True-God whose names I have given above- their followers are exhorted to defend them in this connection in the first place.

If they fail to defend them; then I will defend them also after purification of their scriptures as per principles outlined in Quran.

Please get help from other Atheists/Agnostics/Skeptics/Humanists who have read Quran themselves; to kindly quote just a single verse, repeat a single verse, from Quran in this connection. Please don’t give a list; if one has a list then select ONE verse that justify your viewpoint the most, for discussion here.

One could contact the person who wrote the article on the subject from the link provided by one and get help from him, if he can help.

Thanks and regards

http://thesuperstitiousnakedape.wordpress.com/2014/03/17/hermeneutics-2/comment-page-1/#comment-13372

PAARSURREY says:
March 22, 2014 at 4:59 pm

@BOBBIERILEYJR says:March 22, 2014 at 12:12 am
“Most telling is that slavery is still practiced in the Sudan, Niger, Mauritania and a few other corners of the Muslim world.” Unquote

It has got nothing to do with Quran/Islam/Muhammad. There is no commandment or teaching in Quran to make one a slave.
I think it will be clear to one if one listens the following Friday Sermon from Mirza Masroor Ahmad- the Head of the World-Wide Ahmadiyya Muslim Community.

He is the fifth rightful Successor to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (1835-1908) – The Promised Messiah – The Second Coming:
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVBxj5rVA8k?feature=player_embedded&w=640&h=360%5D

The original Sermon was delivered in Urdu; its translations are available in following languages:

Urdu, English, Albanian, Arabic, Bengali, Bosnian, Bulgarian, French, German, Indonesian, Malayalam, Russian, Spanish, Swahili, Tamil, Turkish

Please click the language of your choice by accessing the following link:

http://www.alislam.org/friday-sermon/2011-11-25.html

http://thesuperstitiousnakedape.wordpress.com/2014/03/17/hermeneutics-2/comment-page-1/#comment-13382

PAARSURREY says:
March 23, 2014 at 9:19 pm

@BOBBIERILEYJR says: March 22, 2014 at 8:01 pm
“A fatwa” Unqoute

A fatwa means an opinion. Opinions could differ; it could be and is an unsubstantiated opinion and not supported by the context verses of Quran or other verses of Quran.

A fatwa is not a verse of Quran; and is not binding on others.

If a sinful Mullah believes wrongly for his vested interest; he is responsible for it not Quran/Islam/Muhammad.

You have referred to Chapter 23; please read the following four pages in its verse 23:7 for its explanation:

http://www.alislam.org/quran/tafseer/?page=1781&region=E1&CR=
http://www.alislam.org/quran/tafseer/?page=1782&region=E1
http://www.alislam.org/quran/tafseer/?page=1783&region=E1
http://www.alislam.org/quran/tafseer/?page=1784&region=E1

It will make things clear for you.

Regards

Do Humanists (Atheists) excel in Morality from Christians?

March 9, 2014

Paarsurrey wrote comments on the following blog; the viewers could give their valuable opinion.

“FINDING TRUTH”
“WHAT IT WOULD TAKE”
http://findingtruth.wordpress.com/?s=WHAT+IT+WOULD+TAKE
http://findingtruth.wordpress.com/2012/04/06/704/#comment-8716

paarsurrey
March 9, 2014 at 1:54 pm

@ Nate : March 9, 2014 at 11:41 am
“That said, there are definitely important aspects to life that we typically derive from religion, morality being the most important. And if I don’t believe in a god, how can I be moral? What does atheism provide as a basis?
Actually, I don’t think atheism does provide a basis for morality, since it only informs one’s stance on the existence of god(s). Instead, I get my basis for morality through humanism. The idea is that all people have value and are worthy of respect. You’ve shown great courtesy in your comments, for instance. And it’s not because we share religious beliefs, but because you obviously believe you should show respect to your fellow man. I feel the same way.” Unquote

Thanks for your response.

I agree that morality could be a positive factor for changing one’s ideology, as it is an important aspect of human life for peaceful co-existence.

So for the sake of morality for one you had opted to accept Humanism (not Atheism as you have yourself stated above, if I have correctly understood it).

Can you please enumerate the principles of morality and their wisdom that Humanism (not Atheism) provides with reference to a Humanist’s source of consensus so that we could make a comparison v Quran which is the first and the foremost source of consensus of Muslims?

Also please mention that the same morals which you have found out now in Humanism in fact were non-existent in Christians- your previous ideology, and that the Humanists have excelled them with a very big margin in codifying them theoretically as well as practically.

Thanks and regards

Atheists moving in circles, un-naturally

January 28, 2014

http://maasaiboys.wordpress.com/2014/01/27/things-that-annoy-me/comment-page-1/#comment-10943

paarsurrey says:
January 28, 2014 at 02:39

“Of course, you’re assuming a god in your response. Turning around and saying that a god must set moral norms because he’s a god, says that you define your god as a moral setter.”
Please don’t mind; you are assuming in this discussion as do other atheists agnostics skeptics that there exists no God; and on the other hand you ask evidences for His existence.

If for natural concepts the atheists ask others for evidences and proofs; and their askance is valid; then why they feel shy for providing evidences and proofs themselves for their un-natural concepts?

I believe in the One-True-God very naturally like I believe in my existence and the existence of my father and mother.

Hence His (the One-True-God Allah Yahweh Ahura-Mazda Parmeshawara Eshawara) being an ethical, moral and spiritual setter is very natural and reasonable.

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Note:The viewers are advised to see other posts in the context also

A rubble does not make a building automatically: Atheists to know

July 26, 2013

A rubble does not make a building automatically.

 

 

  • paarsurrey
    July 24th, 2013 at 2:00 pm

    “No rational point against theism has been made.”
    I agree with you; Smalley has failed to make any good argument in it.

  • paarsurrey
    July 24th, 2013 at 2:07 pm

    “Thus, the act of putting this on a top ten list serves mostly to highlight how little real material exists for Smalley to post in support of his materialistic atheism.”

    Like other Atheists/Humanist/Skeptics/Agnostics; they all attack religion and want to demolish a constructed building thinking that the rubble would make a building for them automatically.

    That will never happen; human conscious would reject the unnatural materialism/atheism (as a way of life).

Claim Knowledge and Run

July 24, 2013

Paarsurrey says:

Smalley has generalized all dead and living religions; the polytheist and the monotheists together; not a sensible approach of him for sure.

The title of your post is good and pertinent.

  • paarsurrey
    July 24th, 2013 at 1:41 pm

    Reblogged this on paarsurrey and commented:
    Smalley has generalized all dead and living religions; the polytheist and the monotheists together; not a sensible approach of him for sure.

    The title of your post is good and pertinent.

  • paarsurrey
    July 24th, 2013 at 1:48 pm

    Quoting words from your post:

    “God of modern monotheistic book religion.”

    Quran identifies them as the people of the book; those who have a revealed book to follow distinct from those who don’t have a revealed book.

    What is your concept of “modern monotheistic religion”? Please

  • paarsurrey
    July 24th, 2013 at 1:50 pm

    “Referencing dead religions as if this were a point in itself is, therefore, a mistake of someone who has read very little theology.”

    I agree with you here.

  • paarsurrey
    July 24th, 2013 at 1:54 pm

    “the counter that secular views have many discredited relatives wouldn’t be far behind.”
    They are also many factions; some of them are not satisfied even that they should be called Atheists; they prefer themselves to be called Humanists or Skeptics/Agnostics; all negative and meaningless connotations, in my opinion.

  • paarsurrey
    July 24th, 2013 at 1:58 pm

    “western monotheism”

    What is western monotheism?

    I think East is/was the citadel of monotheism; it did not originate with the West, in my opinion. Please elaborate this point for me.

  • paarsurrey
    July 24th, 2013 at 2:00 pm

    “No rational point against theism has been made.”
    I agree with you; Smalley has failed to make any good argument in it.

  • paarsurrey
    July 24th, 2013 at 2:07 pm

    “Thus, the act of putting this on a top ten list serves mostly to highlight how little real material exists for Smalley to post in support of his materialistic atheism.”

    Like other Atheists/Humanist/Skeptics/Agnostics; they all attack religion and want to demolish a constructed building thinking that the rubble would make a building for them automatically.

    That will never happen; human conscious would reject the unnatural materialism/atheism.

Fide Dubitandum

look_a_distraction_design_by_eecomicsNext from Smalley’s “Top Ten Reasons Why I’m an Athiest”, we have this:

4. Demeter, Jesus, Apollo, Horus, Zeus, Mithra, Yahweh, Tammuz, Ganesha, and Allah are only 10 of the thousands of gods recorded in history. An Atheist is not one that refuses to read religious doctrine; it is often one who reads too many. 

As before, it is very unclear what the argument actually is here. But I suppose that it is something like this:

Belief in any particular religion (presumably, Christianity) is as unreasonable as belief in these other deities.

The first thing to note here is that this is simply not true. Anyone who actually reads a lot of theology would understand that the gods of ancient temple religions are open to a host of objections that wouldn’t remotely address the God of modern monotheistic book religion.

Little, if any, of the case supporting the existence of…

View original post 234 more words

Quran is neither ambiguous nor contradictory

March 18, 2010

Hi my global friends

I quote here verses from Quran, which my friends at http://www.rational-skepticism.org/ think are ambiguous.

I quote here the verses and invite my friends on that forum and others to discuss these verses here freely yet within the norms of decency, ethics and morals:

[21:29] He knows what is before them and what is behind them, and they intercede not except for him whom He approves, and they act cautiously for fear of Him.
[21:30] And whosoever of them should say, ‘I am a God beside Him,’ him shall We requite with Hell. Thus do We requite the wrongdoers.
[21:31] Do not the disbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were a closed-up mass, then We opened them out? And We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe? [21:32] And We have made in the earth firm mountains lest it should quake with them; and We have made therein wide pathways, that they may be rightly guided.
[21:33] And We have made the heaven a roof, well protected; yet they turn away from its Signs. [21:34] And He it is Who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon, each gliding along in its orbit.
[21:35] We granted not everlasting life to any human being before thee. If then thou shouldst die, shall they live here for ever?
[21:36] Every soul shall taste of death; and We prove you with evil and good by way of trial. And to Us shall you be returned.
[21:37] And when the disbelievers see thee, they only make a jest of thee. They say: ‘Is this the one who makes an evil mention of your gods?’ While it is they themselves who reject with disdain the mention of the Gracious God.
[21:38] Man is made of haste. I will certainly show you My Signs but ask Me not to hasten. [21:39] And they say, ‘When will this promise be fulfilled, if you are truthful?’

http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?ch=21&verse=28

Open for discussion for everybody.

Thanks

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

“The holier they get, the scarier they get”

February 27, 2010

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/eboo_patel/2010/02/the_religious_textbooks_wars.html

Paarsurrey wrote:
February 26, 2010 7:27 AM

Hi friends

The Religion should be a part of the education of children in Schools; so that they have an idea of Ethics, Morals and the Spiritual progress. There is no harm if the point of view of the Seculars or Humanists or the Atheists is also accommodated in the text books.

Thanks

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

Arkns wrote:
February 26, 2010 12:07 PM

Ahmadiyyas are peaceful Muslims. Unfortunately, they are persecuted in Pakistan. It seems someone told the Sunnis that they are the only true representatives of Islam. Meanwhile, the real McCoy is still out.

All this holy business in Islam, all this rigid viewpoints and ways of living is not amounting to much. Zilch would be nice but the overall effect is really negative, not even zero.

I have no problem with nonobservant Muslims. They are pretty nice. It is the devout ones that are scary. It seems that the holier they get, the scarier they get. One can see this when boarding a plane anywhere along with long bearded devout Muslims in skull caps. Their overwhelming piety makes the trip a scary one.

There are external laws of science as there are internal laws of the spirit. In the laboratory of the world, sodium plus chloride gives you sodium chloride. In the internal world, a longing heart plus religious practices (that is worth the paper they are written on) should give us a mellow heart. Spiritual practices must lead to an expanded consciousness, a heart that melts in empathy and love for fellow human beings. God and Prophet should lead you to universal love and compassion, not universal bloody-mindedness. I will question any God if the practices He prescribes leads towards hatred and not towards love.

Yes, from where I come from even God is answerable. Consider the Buddha who told Ananda, His chief disciple:
“Don’t accept something just because I said it. Go out and test what I say and accept it only if the results are positive but reject it if the results are negative”.

Thus spake Zarathustra!

Paarsurrey wrote:
February 27, 2010 8:35 AM

Hi friend arkns

I have enjoyed your entire post and agree with most of the points; in special the followings:
• The holier they get, the scarier they get.
• In the internal world, a longing heart plus religious practices (that is worth the paper they are written on) should give us a mellow heart.
• Buddha who told Ananda:”Don’t accept something just because I said it. Go out and test what I say and accept it only if the results are positive but reject it if the results are negative”.

Just a little question:

Are you a Buddhist or Zoroastrian? I hold them both in good esteem.

Regards

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

“The (religious) textbook wars”

February 27, 2010


http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/eboo_patel/2010/02/the_religious_textbooks_wars.html

Paarsurrey wrote:
February 26, 2010 7:27 AM

Hi friends

The Religion should be a part of the education of children in Schools; so that they have an idea of Ethics, Morals and the Spiritual progress. There is no harm if the point of view of the Seculars or Humanists or the Atheists is also accommodated in the text books.

Thanks

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

YEAL9 wrote:
February 26, 2010 10:30 AM

More movements (and another Messiah) in a stream of Islamic sects;

“Ahmadiyya (äh mə dē’ yə), a contemporary messianic movement founded (1899) by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (1839-1908), b. Qadiyan, the Punjab. His Barahin-i Ahmadiyya, which he began to publish in 1880, was well received by his Islamic community. In 1889, he announced that he had received a divine revelation authorizing him to accept the baya, the allegiance of the faithful; he later also declared himself the Mahdi and the promised Messiah (masih) of Islam (1891).

His doctrine, incorporating Indian, Sufi, Islamic, and Western elements, attempted to revitalize Islam in the face of the British raj, Protestant Christianity, and resurgent Hinduism.

After his death, his followers elected Mawlana Nur ad-Din as his successor. Nur ad-Din died in 1914, and the community split into two branches. The majority remained in Qadiyan and recognized Ghulam Ahmad as prophet (nabi). The basic belief held by the Qadiyani community was and is that it is the sole embodiment of “True Islam.”

The founder’s son, Hadhrat Mirza Bashir ad-Din Mahmud Ahmad (1889-1965), was chosen as Khalifatul-Masih [caliph of the Messiah] by the Qadiyani branch, known today as the Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam (jamaat-i ahmadiyya). His half-century of leadership shaped the movement, operating after 1947 out of the city of Rabwah (which they founded and gave a Qur’anically inspired name) in Pakistan and administering a network of schools and hospitals.

His successors have been chosen from among Ghulam Ahmad’s descendants; the leader of the movement (since 2003) is Mirza Masroor Ahmad (b. 1950).

The other branch, less willing to distinguish itself from mainstream Islam, recognized Ghulam Ahmad as a reformer (mujaddid) and established what came to be known as the ahmadiyya anjuman ishaat-i Islam movement in Lahore, Pakistan, also known as the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement. Both branches engage in energetic missionary activity in Nigeria, Kenya, Indonesia, and the Indian subcontinent.”

from: answers.com

Paarsurrey wrote:
February 27, 2010 8:21 AM

Hi friends

Our friend YEAL9 has provided good information about Ahmadiyya. Ahmadiyya is an enlightened movement not only to revitalize Islam but all the Revealed Religions of the world. Since it accepts reason, rationality and revelation as consistent tools of man for life; hence it bridges the gaps between Atheists and Theists also and in this way works for bringing about understanding and peace in the world. Ahmadiyya don’t see any real wedge between Science and Religion; the former being the Work and the later being the Word of the same Creator- God Allah YHWH.

I love Jesus and Mary as mentioned in Quran

Thanks

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim